Skip to content
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ In addition to traditional security problems associated with software, LLMs have

* **Prompt hacking**: Different techniques related to prompt engineering, including prompt injection (additional instruction to hijack the model's answer), data/prompt leaking (retrieve its original data/prompt), and jailbreaking (craft prompts to bypass safety features).
* **Backdoors**: Attack vectors can target the training data itself, by poisoning the training data (e.g., with false information) or creating backdoors (secret triggers to change the model's behavior during inference).
* **Defensive measures**: The best way to protect your LLM applications is to test them against these vulnerabilities (e.g., using red teaming and checks like [garak](https://github.com/leondz/garak/)) and observe them in production (with a framework like [langfuse](https://github.com/langfuse/langfuse)).
* **Defensive measures**: The best way to protect your LLM applications is to test them against these vulnerabilities (e.g., using red teaming and checks like [garak](https://github.com/leondz/garak/)) and observe them in production (with a framework like [langfuse](https://github.com/langfuse/langfuse) or [agenta](https://github.com/agenta-ai/agenta)).

📚 **References**:
* [OWASP LLM Top 10](https://owasp.org/www-project-top-10-for-large-language-model-applications/) by HEGO Wiki: List of the 10 most critical vulnerabilities seen in LLM applications.
Expand Down